The ‘cost’ of gun ownership

Bad timing. Who is running this place?

I’m a long time reader, first time poster. This article is in poor taste given the recently tragedy. It is also poorly written. You boldly say not to discuss politics, merely the cost of ownership. Yet 4 of your 6 paragraphs (66%) of your article is loaded with politics. Shame on you. J.D. would never have published this.

My house was robbed when I was a child – I lived in a neighborhood where no one locked their doors and windows were left open in the summertime. My family slept through the robbery. The guy was high on heroine and stole dress-up jewelry (think dollar store purchases)from UNDERNEATH MY BED. This in fact, is how he got caught, by trying to sell the dollar store ‘emerald’ to an undercover cop. What did my family do in the wake of that scary crime? We got a dog; then, we got another dog. Rottweilers or German Shepards? No, golden retrievers – really scary, mean-looking goldens (no, they weren’t). The ironic part of my story, and why I felt like sharing it, is that the robber later died in jail of AIDS. That’s right, a blood-borne illness. So, if blood had been exchanged in my house, and we hadn’t all slept through it, who knows what could have happened. I’m not saying every robber is going to be a needle-based drug addict and leave you alone during a home invasion, but my point is, you have to think about the long-term consequences of EVERY action, especially one like a gun purchase; similar to when there are topics on this blog that are ACTUALLY related to personal finance – which emphasize and promote long-term sustainability over short-term satisfaction. You may sleep better at night knowing you have a “secured” hand gun in your midst, but at what potential, eventual cost? Nothing good comes from guns, ever. Only injury or death.

Next time write about personal finance – until then, I’m out. Poor, poor post.

This post made me very angry. It is very insensitive.

I disagree with the previous comments. Personal finance is all about considering your own personal risk tolerance and “cost” is often a mix of things, money being one of them. I think the request to avoid politics is a request to not be dogmatic and intentionally polarizing. I have been contemplating the statics myself and 3 million guns to 30,000 gun related deaths means that 1% are responsible for deaths and 99% are not. But what those numbers mean to us personally is what I think the question is about.

The timing is justified because it puts into context what that 1% risk looks like.

I’m going to ignore the timing of the article, the politics, the writing quality and just answer the author’s question. I live on the outskirts of a rural town in Florida. I have livestock. I own a .22 rifle and a .22 pistol, both of which I enjoy target practice with on our extensive land. That target practice keeps me in shape for protecting our livestock from predators. I’ve already taken out a possum that was trying to get into the chicken coop, and my guns would also be able to handle the pervasive skunk, raccoon, and coyote populations. So yes, guns are very important to my life.

That said, for home defense, one or more large dogs trained to bark at and intimidate strangers is more effective, IMO, than a gun for home defense. If you do get a gun, a shotgun with non-wall penetrating rounds would be the way to go. Practice with it regularly so that you an fire it from muscle memory. When you’re half asleep and terrified, the last thing the average person will be able to do is carefully aim and fire one bullet at a time. Unproven, but I’d also guess that a pump action shotgun would possibly even scare off the intruder as they hear you chamber the round because of years of hearing that sound in movies, right before someone gets killed. It also makes it more difficult for a kid to accidentally shoot themselves (though of course you would have taught your kids about the four rules of gun safety repeatedly).

I believe that it is the perfect time to discuss this issue. Those that disagree have clearly stated their opinion on the subject being talked about by leaving the blog. Politicians are restating their opinions and using this tragedy to further their desires. The country is debating the second amendment to our constitution no less. Some view this as the time to circumvent the law of the land without repealing it. We must be careful advocating ignoring the constitution. Which laws of our country do you/they wish to ignore next and who decides? I fear more of my freedom is waning.

I agree this post has little to do with personal finance. I stopped reading the article after the second time the shooter’s mother was said to have guns because of fear of social collapse. You didn’t mention where you obtained that information, but it’s my understanding that it was her hobby, hence the collection of different types of guns.

If you genuinely don’t know if you want to own a gun, don’t buy one until or unless you decide you want one. You don’t need to write an article to figure that out.

The topic of gun ownership is always a touchy one.

I will preface by saying that I own several now, including two rifles similar to the one used in CT and Portland. I also own larger caliber semi-automatic rifles that, if in the wrong hands, would have been far more devastating.

But let me back up. My decision to purchase my first firearm came when I was in college. I was living in a duplex with a few friends from ROTC. One night, someone broke in through the other door of the duplex and stabbed the resident ten times with an ice pick in order to steal three hundred dollars. The police came, of course, but they took 15 minutes to get there (and this is Miami, Florida! not some rural farmland). I decided that night that if I was to guarantee myself a chance at safety, then I needed to take safety into my own hands. I purchased my first pistol a couple months later.

Fast forward, I now live in central Montana (with 30-40 minute average response time) and my first firearm purchase has grown into a full blown collection. Each weapon I own has a purpose. As you begin participating in the shooting sports, which you may or may not do, you will realize that there is no such thing as the “perfect gun” that will do everything you ask. My wife, due to size and upper body strength, cannot effectively handle a shotgun. She is OK with a pistol when shooting two handed, but then cannot use a flashlight to identify whatever she is aiming at (rule number 4). So, she uses an AR-15 variant equipped with a flashlight and red dot sight. That AR is set up for home defense. My second AR is set up for hunting and target shooting.

The more you learn about ballistics, you will come to find that the .223 round is actually safer for use indoors. The same “tumbling and breaking” effect that the news is talking about as being “more deadly” is exactly the same thing that stops these bullets from penetrating too far into other walls. A missed shot will enter a wall and break apart shortly after exiting the other side. A pistol or shotgun round will not, they will continue to pass through several walls. It’s all about mass and geometry of the projectile. If you live in an apartment or townhouse, this is important. That is why I personally believe that a carbine is ideal for home protection.

The rest of my collection spans uses from hunting to long range target competition. I even have two guns that just make nice collectables (WWII M1 Garand and a 1911). I commend you on choosing to do more research. I find that those who are most vocal about banning items also have very little or no experience with the items they advocate banning.

As others have said, however, the choice to own a firearm comes with the responsibility of being well practiced in its use. I know several people, even in places like San Francisco, who will sheepishly admit they own a small revolver. Because of how they feel about it they have neve shot it, or even taken it out of the box they bought it in. Should a time come where they feel they actually need to employ the weapon, these people will be more of a danger to themselves and those around them than whatever threat they are trying to stop.

I will admit that seeing this post on a finance blog was odd. But unlike others, I am not opposed to having this discussion. True information is power, and the more information that gets out there the better.

This is an interesting topic, and I do not believe it is inappropriate following Sandy Hook. If something as tragic as the death of 26 innocent lives cannot bring this issue to a rational debate, then what can? When WILL the right time be?

That being said, I question the motivation of this article-I agree that I don’t necessarily come here to read political discussions regarding gun ownership, and I have noticed a general decline in the quality of the articles since J.D. left. I wouldn’t say that El Nerdo is contributing to that-I normally quite like his articles, but this particular article is a little odd, provoking without really allowing for thoughtful discourse.

Regarding the question of guns that El Nerdo asked-I was raised by a military veteran who later became a police officer, and both my parents knew how to use firearms and did . My husband was also raised by gun-owners, who used their shotguns and large dogs for hunting (my parents did not hunt). We (husband and I) had discussed several months ago that we were interested in purchasing a firearm, mostly for home-defense. We called and talked with it at length with my father, who gave us multiple ideas about both fire-arms and non-firearms options for security.

My father posed this question to me, and I will pass it on to you El Nerdo: if you purchase a gun, particularly a HAND gun (more lethal, for example, then a shot gun filled with bird shot), your chances of seriously killing someone you shot at would escalate dramatically. Are you willing to kill someone?

I do NOT think guns are intrinsically evil things, but they are designed for a specific purpose, which we as human beings use to fulfill that purpose. Think seriously about that-if someone came at you in your house and you shot them, can you live with the consequences?

I understand why you are thinking about a gun. What I can say is this. Don’t get a gun to protect yourself and your property unless you absolutely know you are willing to kill someone. Every police person will tell you that you do not shoot to maim, you shoot to kill. If you decide that you are, then make absolutely certain you keep your firearm in an access-restricted, child-proof place. Then, practice, practice, practice getting to it and unlocking it quickly. Also, learn how to handle the firearm and regularly practice. It’s no good to you if you can’t hit what you aim at and if you cannot get to it before it’s too late to be helpful.

Mother Jones has compiled a comprehensive, factual, and relatively unbiased series of articles in which they “…set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.” See http://bit.ly/QiKuvD and http://bit.ly/LDEkVn